8 ms·
As a relatively high-earning person in tech, let me say again: Please tax me and people like me (or wealthier) more. Please, please, please. I'm a greedy capita
by chasing 8y ago
As a relatively high-earning person in tech, let me say again: Please tax me and people like me (or wealthier) more. Please, please, please. I'm a greedy capitalist, but income disparity hurts everyone and our country would be such a more pleasant and productive place if those at the top would express just a shade more generosity by supporting their fellow citizens.
- meddlepal 8y agoYes tax us more so it can be spent just as inefficiently. Throwing more money at our problems is not the solution.
- chasing 8y agoThrowing money at it would solve all sorts of problems. It'd let us pay teachers more. It'd let us provide more healthcare opportunities to people. It'd help us improve our infrastructure like roads and public transportation. It'd help our libraries. It'd make education less expensive, allowing more people access. Fewer people in economic distress means less crime. Better parks. Better maintenance of natural spaces. Etc. Government isn't perfect. But neither is private industry. We need both. And both need money to function well.
- claydavisss 8y agoIn most Bay Area communities education bond measures pass with ease. Same with open space measures. Mid Peninsula Open Space is swimming in money, they buy land faster than they can open it. Bay Area voters just recently approved major funding boosts for Mid Peninsula...why would they do so again so soon? Seems like HN readers would do well to survey what has passed in the last ten years...
- meddlepal 8y agoMore money == things are better is just too simple of a model to make a decision like this. You add more money to the system and where does it go? It's not automatically allocated to your causes, some of it gets siphoned off in administrative overhead. Some of it gets reallocated. Some of it is just used for cronyism or lost in the bureaucracy of doing business (e.g. paying lawyer fees to fight NIMBY's who are using environmental review to prevent the development of transportation or public housing). On a tangential note, there is nothing stopping you and a group of like-minded individuals from just paying more taxes to the government.
- drb91 8y ago> You add more money to the system and where does it go? Probably from rich person to rich person, but there's the hope tax money goes to actual services. At worst we're in the same position. > On a tangential note, there is nothing stopping you and a group of like-minded individuals from just paying more taxes to the government. The people inclined to act in this communal/moral way are often not suited to make significant amounts of money to give away. You need to take the money from the rich people and give it to the poor people.
- sigstoat 8y ago> > You add more money to the system and where does it go? > Probably from rich person to rich person, but there's the hope tax money goes to actual services. At worst we're in the same position. no, the worst case is that capital was misallocated, and growth that could've happened, didn't. all future humans are then harmed.
- drb91 8y ago> no, the worst case is that capital was misallocated, Who is to say this isn’t happening already? I don’t see many signs it’s well allocated today. Look at healthcare costs in America. Look at our defense spending for little tangible return. Look at the homeless on the streets. Look at where VC investments are going (ads, lifestyle spending, and automation—little to no benefit to society as the productivity returns go to the capitalists). Look at the debt necessary to get what is commonly considered a base for any career, ie a degree. Symptomatically, cash is already misallocated for a society that bolsters values I hold dear. > growth that could’ve happened, didn’t Ahh yes, the “market before everything” philosophy. I don’t buy into it. If growth were meaningfully good we’d see wage increase adjusted for inflation in the lower class. We haven’t seen this for decades.
- chasing 8y ago> On a tangential note, there is nothing stopping you and a group of like-minded individuals from just paying more taxes to the government. If I was wealthy enough to self-fund quality healthcare for all Americans, I would. I can't. But I am pleased when hyper-wealthy people give back significant contributions to the common good.
- orangecat 8y agoThe US already spends more than almost all other countries on education: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/020915/what-country-spends-most-education.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/020915/what-country.... Infrastructure costs are significantly higher as well: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/1/14112776/new-york-second-avenue-subway-phase-2 https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/1/14112776/ne.... And of course our deranged health care system delivers worse results at higher costs by capturing exactly the worst aspects of both free markets and central planning. Flinging more money at these institutions is unlikely to do anything useful unless we can figure out why they're performing so poorly.
- scottlegrand2 8y agoIn California at least, when you throw more money at education, they mostly just hire more administrators to manage the money. https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/education/article140663243.html https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/education/article140663243...
- closeparen 8y agoOur zoned housing capacity fits only N residents. No matter how much money you throw around, rents will simply rise until only N people can afford them. We don’t need more and more dollars chasing the same apartments. We need more apartments. Give low income workers more to spend on housing, and the only person whose life materially improves is the landlord.
- gamblor956 8y agoThrowing more money at problem works when the primary problem is that they aren't currently receiving enough money.
- wwweston 8y agoIt's not prima facie obvious that public spending via taxation is less efficient. It's also not clear which argument you might be making asserting that it is -- the general characterizing of state agencies as bureaucratic and wasteful, or something like the undergrad econ models relating taxes to clearing gaps in supply/demand curves, or perhaps something even less specific -- but suffice it to say neither is the end of the story.
- drb91 8y agoWell better than letting the cash not get spent at all.
- thatswrong0 8y agoI don’t think tech workers in SV are the ones hoarding their cash.
- drb91 8y agoI was more indicating the capitalists here.
- AlexandrB 8y ago> Yes tax us more so it can be spent just as inefficiently. Citation needed. Even supposedly inefficient government spending helps the economy more than having the top 1% hoard resources. Consider Apple's huge cash on hand as an example of the latter. What economic benefit is society deriving from allowing Apple to dodge taxes and keeping that money out of the hands of government? Now consider that some government programs are wildly efficient[1] while funding basic research that private VCs won't touch. And finally that government employees are often paid orders of magnitude less than their private-sector counterparts for doing largely the same work. Is there inefficiency in government? Yes. But probably no more than in a similarly sized private company. [1] https://www.nrdc.org/experts/despite-trumps-threat-eliminate-arpa-e-success https://www.nrdc.org/experts/despite-trumps-threat-eliminate...
- pteredactyl 8y agoGo walk around an urban area in America. You'd think with San Francisco's $11,000,000,000 annual budget they'd be able to fix some roads.
- expertentipp 8y agoJust move to an EU country? Over here for any senior software professional the net salary is half of the total salary cost. 50% it is. Dissapointingly it doesn’t convert to exceptional public services or social mobility. It just indicates that one is not connected enough or not born high enough to be above the employment contract relationship.
- chasing 8y agoMoving countries isn't really viable option for most people. I'm happy to stick around here and try to make this place better. Anyway, I'd gladly admit that money isn't the only thing. But it's an important thing. If people in your government aren't using that money wisely (and you live in a democracy): Vote for people who will. And realize that there's no utopian solution: There's stuff that's better and stuff that's worse. Any system will have major flaws. Crooked timber of humanity, and all that.
- expertentipp 8y agoSweet summer child. Even as a citizen of an EU country, I don’t have the right to vote in the country I pay the taxes and contributions in.
- chasing 8y agoJust move to a US state?
- wycs 8y ago>Vote for people who will. It really, truly is not that simple:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice
- ddingus 8y agoIt is not as simple as just voting better, more consistently. The balance of money in politics has taken representation well away from the needs and basic interests of ordinary people. (Among other things.) There needs to be people and policy to vote for. Tepid turnout is rooted in the lack of both and that is rooted in the money imbalance. Much of our current body politic is vote against. Secondly, it is often about implied mutual, public good too. What did I just say? One example is the lesser evil type conversation. Related is the "not those people" conversation. In simple terms, we point to bad, and the idea is get rid of bad, which implies good or better will be the outcome. The reality is there will simply not be a robust, mutual, public good, unless we are explicit about it. That means positive policy advocacy, a current, national example being Medicare For All. Many other examples are easy to find, once a person begins seeking positive politics. That is vote for as opposed to vote against. Finally, we have a lot of fear, blame and shame in our body politic. These things do motivate people, but not all people, and not in the same ways. Because vote against bad does not necessarily mean we are left with good, or a net progress type gain, many people see this as futile and prefer to put their time anywhere but politics. What complicates all this is judgement. Voted "wrong", did not vote, and so forth. The reality is we did what we did and we had reasons. Fair enough. The progress does not come from thrashing about those things. Understanding others and why they made the choices they have made is never a bad thing however. There is a lot more to all of that than many of us will admit. Worth it. It, this better we crave, need, comes from the votes we will cast together. The votes to come and the reasons for them. I have come to learn I do not want or need to judge others on their politics. I have also learned we all benefit when we demonstrate mutual respect and understanding. Does not matter why, nor what any of us may think about all of that. It just is lower turnout and often a set of dubious, unexciting choices where we do not have more explicit policy visions to vote for, get behind. Our remedy is a sustained, positive civic effort. People getting involved and doing so FOR things, basic, important things. Some will run for office, others will organize, others do advocacy, write code, produce media, etc... A majority of people in the US are really struggling. I won't speak to answers here, just the "why didn't you vote?" part of this discussion. Lack of vote FOR is why. Being jaded is why. Not being spoken to, or about, relevance is why. Where we address those things, make basics explicit, people are motivated differently, and that GOTV looks very different from the usual fear, blame and shame dominated GOTV. Think of this as an add, not a replace. We can attract voters, ask for votes, explain why. Notice how infrequently that ask actually happens? I do. We cannot tell people what to do, and compelling them with fear, blame and shame has it's limits. More is needed. I do a lot of election related work. I have noticed people under 35 'ish are responding differently. There is a generational changing of the guard in progress. New politics, positive, explicit politics are part of this shift. Make no mistake. Money is a big deal. However, people to people politics is also a thing and it packs a big punch. Put vote FOR politics out there, speak right to people, and they will turn out and with that, impact the body politic in positive ways. Support those people who put vote FOR politics out there. Few of us can, will run. That is OK. We all can play a role. A better state of policy will be the most likely outcome. All that is where my personal time and money goes. Honestly, a good metric seems to be about 5 to 10 percent of our personal time. That is what I have been doing for a while now. More people are. I feel better about politics, despite the horror show we have going on right now. I can laugh, as well as lament the pain. But, I also have positives in play and a growing peer group doing similar things. This helps a lot, and it helps because I understand a lot more about the process and the more immediate impact local politics can have. National politics is hard. Local is easier, and one can see good happen fairly quickly. It all adds up, in my view. Voting is vital, but so is being involved. Activism, lending skills and time, simple volunteering all matter a lot more than I see many well meaning, but frustrated, people appear to realize. One last thing. Nothing I put here is partisan. Examples given may be, but that is not my intent. Better politics happen within a more robust, vibrant body politic, and that is my intent. Consider placing more trust in that, get involved, share with your friends. All that is where the good stuff is, money or no money. I did, and it helps. Maybe it will for you and yours too.
- whb07 8y agoCan you explain how income disparity hurts? Just using that measurement alone it can distort the ground reality. To list a couple high wealth disparity countries: Singapore, US, and North Korea. Clearly one of them is not like the others.
- chasing 8y agoNot in a Hacker News comment, I can't. But google around -- the information is fairly easy to find.
- alehul 8y agoComments like this are really unhelpful if you can't even provide a link. There's probably thousands of arguments on Google for how "income disparity hurts", and most can likely be successfully argued against rather simply. If you've found a sound argument, please at least provide a link to it.
- whb07 8y agoIt’s too simplistic a measurement to use, clearly it’s incorrect to use it by itself. Another example to use would be imagine a neighborhood with the Forbes 100 richest, the extreme income disparity there between Number 1 and Number 100 clearly breaks what you’re commenting on. Maybe the measurement should be ability to move up and down the economic strata.
- Spooky23 8y agoNorth Korea is peasants, military and a tiny elite. There is no real commercial sector. If you look at the US, it’s more of a developing Brazil like situation. We’re developing a growing peasant/underclass, growing the wealthy as assets concentrate and squeezing the professional and semi-professional classes.
- SamReidHughes 8y agoEvery time I look at trends in income distribution in the US, I don't see low income earners increasing. I see middle income earners moving up. If you have quantitative information that contradicts this, I'd like to see it. Edit: I want to clarify that I don't see the same thing in California, where market restrictions have made the average joe poorer.
- claydavisss 8y agoThe State of California is already showing annual surpluses. But in any case you will note that both your Federal and State tax forms permit a voluntary donation beyond what you owe ..do you take advantage of this?
- infinity0 8y agoNo, because I can't be sure that my peers also "take advantage" of it to the same extent. I and many people are happy to contribute more, but only if others also contribute more. Especially if people better off than me (like my landlord) aren't paying their fair share, that strongly indicates to me that I should not pay my fair share either.
- claydavisss 8y agoYour landlord is paying what society asks. Who are to say this isn't fair? In any case your excuse is a cop out, you're just a lazy complainer. Typical California...on your high horse but someone else has to act first. Just write a check to the FSB and stop making excuses why you can't follow through
- Redoubts 8y ago> Your landlord is paying what society asks. Who are to say this isn't fair? He's a member of society. You can't say "society asks", and then complain when someone wants to change people's minds. The current state of affairs isn't necessary and absolutely correct.
- meddlepal 8y agoWho cares what your peers are doing. In your ideology every penny counts, so why not be the first one? You're a complainer. Start a movement. Be the change you want to see. I'm sure there's still a pithy Twitter hashtag to be had out there for you and others that agree with you but are afraid to take the first step.
- 8y ago
- nightski 8y agoTaxing wages doesn't seem like a very smart strategy. You probably feel rich, but if your primary source of income is wages then you aren't. This won't solve income disparity as it's not how wealthy people earn income. It really will hurt the middle to upper-middle class without making a huge difference.
- chasing 8y agoI don't think I said just tax my wages. Taxes on capital gains are also way too low. Let's close some loopholes, as well.
- enraged_camel 8y agoProperty needs to be taxed a lot more too. Basically, we should tax wealth, not income.
- jogjayr 8y agoThat seems like suboptimal policy - even to a layman like me. For one, if you're not making money off an asset you're already paying a "tax" in terms of opportunity cost. Second, it feels unfair - taxes are the price we pay for prospering in, and benefiting from a just society with strong property rights. So if you're not profiting (either investment/business returns or earned income), why should you pay tax? Third, for something that has a fairly cut-and-dry definition, income is already fudged and mis-reported on so many tax returns. Property valuation is way more subjective; think about things like art, patents, copyrights, real estate without comparable sales, software, trade secrets, brands and trademarks. Correctly and fairly taxing it seems nightmarish, might require far more bureaucracy. It would certainly be more intrusive - the government would need to know every single item of value that you own. Of course, I'm no expert and maybe there are places that have successfully implemented a property-only tax system that includes non-real property.
- dbcurtis 8y agoNo, we should tax consumption. A consumption tax encourages savings, which lowers cost of capital, which is overall an economic stimulant. Most people say: "But wait! A consumption tax is regressive!". No, you are thinking of something like a sales tax collected at point of sale. A consumption tax can be progressive, and I do advocate for a progressive consumption tax. It is no harder to administer than the current US income tax. All the entities currently required to report to the IRS are sufficient to implement a consumption tax formula, and mostly even with the same data, although probably with a few tweaks. Income - net savings == consumption. Apply table. Done. Rich people will still buy yachts and pay their share of tax. You could even implement UBI and/or welfare as a "negative consumption tax", and eliminate huge swaths of bureaucracy.
- d357r0y3r 8y agoIf you want to do the most with your apparently surplus income, look into effective altruism. Your dollar will go a lot further with <take your pick of 1,000 charitable organizations> than it will after going through 10 layers of bureaucracy. The great thing about is you can start doing it today - you don't have to wait for a gridlocked, highly polarized federal legislative body to come to some pork-filled "compromise".
- egypturnash 8y agoYes, because the world's direction should obviously be decided by the folks who won the startup lotteries.
- fzeroracer 8y agoWe should just remove healthcare and replace it with effective altruism. That would work right? The problem with effective altruism is that it requires people to invest in things that sometimes would go against their own personal interests. For example I have no reason to invest my money in improving the public transit of towns I can never see myself living in, instead I would invest that money in places that I or my family lives in. The flaw of course is that it leads to companies heavily investing only in regions where they're located which are usually heavily gentrified and upper-class neighborhoods.
- djrogers 8y agoHow does taxing you more change income disparity?
- pascalxus 8y agoI think you might come to regret such an attitude when you find out your too old to be hired and age discrimination kicks in. You might take job security for granted now, but there's no guarantee that software engineering will be in high demand forever. When you get older, you'll be left with whatever meager amount you've earned. If I were you I'd start saving, rather than reveling in your seemingly high salary.
- chasing 8y agoFirst, I’m not sure why you’re making assumptions about what I do and don’t do with my money. Second, you’re exactly right in that people’s fortunes can turn. Which is why we should all support things like universal healthcare and higher minimum wages. No one should feel like if things go badly for them they could literally no longer afford to live.
- pteredactyl 8y agoUhhh. I get your sentiment, but have you seen what our government has done with our tax dollars lately? Giving the government more money is not the answer.
- masonic 8y agoPlease tax me and people like me (or wealthier) more. You can pay more tax than you do now, voluntarily -- there's a place for it right on your 1040 (if USA). If thus statement is sincere, you should be doing so already.